Jane Bloom Grisé UK College of Law Colonial Frontier Legal Writing Conference December 6, 2014

Introduction to Circuits

Hypothesis Law students who receive critical reading instruction will be stronger writers.

Introduction Study background Student experiences Reading studies General learning theory Research study Study design Critical reading instruction Student reaction

Student reading experiences

Reading Studies “a correlation exists between the reading strategies of the top law students and their first semester grades.” Leah Christensen, Legal Reading & Success in Law School: An Empirical Study, 30 Seattle L. Rev. 603 (2007)

Lundeberg Study: 1987 Expert & Novice Reading Strategies CategoryNovicesExperts Context – look for headings 110 Overview08 Reread rule39 Reread terms36 Synthesis36 Evaluate110 Underline56

Dorothy Deegan: Law Review Article (1995) Reading Strategies Upper QuartileLower Quartile Paraphrase, underline 29.1%44.7% Reread, question 58.9%40.3%

Laurel Currie Oates: Torts Casebook (1997) CategoryTop 15%Bottom 20%Professor Read as advocate yesnoyes Rereadyesnoyes

Leah Christensen: Judicial Opinion (2007) CategoryHigher Performance Lower Performance Paraphrase, underline 21%77% Reread, question 45%12% Evaluate32%9% Read as advocate 55%15%

TOP STUDENTS Read as advocate or judge. Understood context of case. Created mental picture of facts. Read and re-read. Evaluated decisions.

LOW PERFORMING STUDENTS Read for class. Skimmed over the facts. Underlined and highlighted a great deal. Focused on paraphrasing. Did not question the result.

Lundeberg Study: 1987 Reading Instruction Intervention Student Experience GuidelinesGuidelines & Training Nothing Pre-law23.75/ / weeks of law school 22.5/ / /19 2 months of law school 23.66/ / / years of law school

Bloom’s Taxonomy

Research Study Hypothesis: Law students who receive critical reading instruction will be stronger writers. Apply basic principles of reading instruction to law school context.

Study Design  All 1Ls invited to participate.  Created participant & control groups – equivalent LSAT/UGPA.  First writing assignment - pre-test.  9 sessions of critical reading instruction for participant group.  Last writing assignment - post-test.  Compare 1 st semester grades & performance on writing assignments (rubrics for each).

Instructional Sessions SessionTimingSession Description OverviewBefore readingCases are difficult to read 1BeforeReading for a purpose, Read as an advocate, Focus 2BeforeContext, Prior Knowledge, Case Structure 3During readingRead for Overview 4DuringFacts 5DuringIssue, Holding, Rationale 6DuringInferences 7After readingEvaluation 8AfterSynthesis

Student Manual  Theoretical basis for each session  Research studies  Practice

Checklist Phase 1 – Before Reading Phase 2 – Read for Overview Phase 3 – Read More Carefully Phase 4 – After Reading

Overview Session Research/Theory Carnegie Report Metacognition Session Implementation Cases are difficult to read Reading studies Self-awareness

Reading Studies “a correlation exists between the reading strategies of the top law students and their first semester grades.” Leah Christensen, Legal Reading & Success in Law School: An Empirical Study, 30 Seattle L. Rev. 603 (2007)

Session 1 Checklist (Purpose) Warning Phase 1 – Before Reading Read for a purpose & assume the role of advocate or judge. Think about time. Read with energy & focus.

Session 1-Purpose Research/Theory Reading studies Mindfulness studies Exercise studies General reading theory Session Implementation Purpose of reading cases Read as an advocate Role of focus (mindfulness) & exercise

Session 2 Checklist (Context & Structure of Cases) Phase 1 – Before Reading Put case in context  Look at syllabus, table of contents, research  Look at case name, citation, court, date  Use prior knowledge (structure of cases, procedure)

Session 2 - Context & Case Structure Research/Theory Reading studies General reading theory Session Implementation Context Prior Knowledge Organizational structure of cases & procedure

Session 3 Checklist (Overview) Phase 2 – Read for Overview  Skim case from beginning to end.  Examine general structure of opinion, headings.  Focus on the parties, who won, and what case is generally about.

Session 3 - Overview Research/Theory Lundeberg study General reading theory Session Implementation Read for overview Non-linear reading

Session 4 Checklist (Facts) Phase 3 – Read More Carefully Understand the facts completely.

Session 4 - Facts Research/Theory Reading studies General reading theory Session Implementation Substantive facts Procedure

Session 5 Checklist (Main Idea) Phase 3 – Read More Carefully Look up words. Read to understand issue, rule, holding, rationale. Make margin notes and brief case. Read case in context of entire decision- understand main ideas.

Session 5 – Main Idea Research/Theory Lundeberg, Oates, Christensen studies General reading theory Session Implementation Role of rereading in understanding holdings Read to understand main ideas and supporting details Read to understand opinion as a whole

Session 6 Checklist (Inferences) Phase 3 – Read More Carefully When courts do not explicitly set forth the rule of law, make inferences to identify the rule.

Session 6 - Inferences Research/Theory General reading theory Session Implementation Understanding cases when holdings are not explicitly stated Explain text Text to text connections Extrapolate from text

What is going on here?

Session 7 Checklist (Evaluation) Phase 4 - After Reading Compile questions – talk with other students/Professors. Evaluate the decision.

Session 7 - Evaluation Research/Theory Reading studies General reading theory Session Implementation Evaluate cases Determine if case can help solve new problems

Session 8 Checklist (Synthesis) After Reading How does the case fit with other cases in the casebook or your research?

Session 8 - Synthesis Research/Theory Reading studies General reading theory Session Implementation When to synthesize How to synthesize

Student Evaluations CategoryStudent Response Do you like the checklist?19/19 – Yes Parts of checklist most useful?15 – Read for a purpose-assume role of advocate/judge. 11 – Synthesis 9 – Read case in context 9 – Look up unfamiliar words Parts of checklist least useful?Time/skimming When should sessions be done?13 - Before school starts; 6 - Earlier in the semester Should reading course be a separate class or part of writing and/or doctrinal classes? 6 – Separate 5 – Writing 2 - Doctrinal

Results & Implications Results Examine participant & control group grades & pre-test writing assignment & post-test writing assignments Implications Timing of instruction Who provides instruction?

BIBLIOGRAPHY Leah Christensen, Legal Reading and Success in Law School: An Empirical Study, 30 Seattle U.L. Rev. 603 (2007) Dorothy H. Deegan, Exploring Individual Differences Among Novices Reading in a Specific Domain: The Case of Law, 30 Reading Res.Q. 154 (1995) Mary A. Lundeberg, Metacognitive Aspects of Reading Comprehension: Studying Understanding in Legal Case Analysis, 22 Reading Res.Q.407 (1987) Ruth Ann McKinney, Reading Like a Lawyer (2012) Laurel Currie Oates, Beating the Odds: Reading Strategies of Law Students Admitted through Alternative Admissions Programs, 83 Iowa L. Rev. 139 (1997) James Stratman, When Law Students Read Cases: Exploring Relations Between Professional Legal Reasoning Roles and Problem Detection, Discourse Processes, 34:1 (2002)